| sc94597 said: 1. There are two things that form a consensus in the current climate theory. a. Climate change is happening. b. Climate change is primarily anthropogenic. These both have tons of empirical data supporting their premeses, and I had not and will not dispute them. So I don't know where you got the idea that, " so do the majority of scientists" disagree. Firstly, we must make clear which are scientific questions and which are not. The cost to society of climate change is not a scientific question. This involves economics and cost-benefit-risk analyses more than it does scientists (the scientists tell what will happen, and the others determine how much it will affect us.) Secondly, most empirical data up until this point, has shown positive benefits of climate change, and it is agreed upon in the scientific community that this will generally be the case until sometime in 2050, when according to the average models with the most likely initial conditions there should be negative effects. Lastly, most climate scientists are concerned that even the most drastic pushes for the reduction of CO2 emissions will not be anywhere close to meeting their goal of + 3% CO2 levels since human influence by 2100. It would require very large reductions in emissions which will greatly impede economic progress, and the concern among those who do consider cost-risk-benefit analyses is that the costs of trying to reach this percentage will outweigh the costs of being over it. Also the planet greening because of higher CO2 levels and fewer people dieing in winters are emprical facts that no scientist or climatologist would greatly dispute. Knowing all of this, I have concluded that the best way to reduce the negative effects of climate change on humanity is to progress economically, and consequently technologically. Nuclear Fusion has just had many breakthroughs, and in the next few decades - when it becomes cost effective - it will demolish fossil fuels as a viable energy source which works well with the electrical grid of most first world countries. Sources: "Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein. Rising CO2 over the next century is likely to affect both agricultural production and food quality. The effects of elevated CO2 are not uniform; some species, particularly those that utilize the C4 variant of photosynthesis, show less of a response to elevated CO2than do other types of plants. Rising CO2 is therefore likely to have complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-4-1-1.html "Plant response to elevated CO2 alone, without climate change, is positive and was reviewed extensively by the TAR. Recent studies confirm that the effects of elevated CO2 on plant growth and yield will depend on photosynthetic pathway, species, growth stage and management regime, such as water and nitrogen (N) applications (Jablonski et al., 2002; Kimball et al., 2002; Norby et al., 2003; Ainsworth and Long, 2005). On average across several species and under unstressed conditions, recent data analyses find that, compared to current atmospheric CO2 concentrations, crop yields increase at 550 ppm CO2 in the range of 10-20% for C3 crops and 0-10% for C4 crops (Ainsworth et al., 2004; Gifford, 2004; Long et al., 2004). Increases in above-ground biomass at 550 ppm CO2 for trees are in the range 0-30%, with the higher values observed in young trees and little to no response observed in mature natural forests (Nowak et al., 2004; Korner et al., 2005; Norby et al., 2005). Observed increase of above-ground production in C3 pastures is about +10% (Nowak et al., 2004; Ainsworth and Long, 2005). For commercial forestry, slow-growing trees may respond little to elevated CO2 (e.g., Vanhatalo et al., 2003), and fast-growing trees more strongly, with harvestable wood increases of +15-25% at 550 ppm and high N (Calfapietra et al., 2003; Liberloo et al., 2005; Wittig et al., 2005). Norby et al. (2005) found a mean tree net primary production (NPP) response of 23% in young tree stands; however in mature tree stands Korner et al. (2005) reported no stimulation."
"31% of the global vegetated area greened in the past 30 years." "This greening translates to a 14% increase in gross productivity " "The greening is seen in all vegetation types" ^ I recommend going through the last presentation. It is very interesting and informative. By the way, I have worked on plenty of models of chaotic systems to understand at least - fundamentally - how the climate modeling is done (I am currently taking a Grad Level Physics course on Thermodynamics with computing and have worked on a programming project dealing with thermodynamic systems for a few semesters or so.) Sure I am not a climatologist, but I understand the differential equations being used and the extent of their abilities for making proactive predictions, as well as their limitations. I also understand the scientific method very well as I am a physics major heading to graduate school next year. 2. Yes I am consistent. I believe all of those things shouldn't be monopolies controlled by the state and should be introduced to private markets with competition. However, even if I didn't believe this that doesn't mean I imply that it is a right. There are plenty of people who think that rights should be given up for public goods or duties. That doesn't mean they believe healthcare is a right, but rather a public good. 3. Just allow for an environment that doesn't create a great disincentive for hiring people. Bernie and the left love to cite scandinavian countries. Norway and Denmark have the best property rights in the world, and relatively few regulations on anything that isn't environmental. 4. Having known how simple it is for the poor to get into college, I really don't see this as an issue. Community colleges are essentially what you are talking about when you mention "subsidized" education. Additionally, people who qualify get loads of grants (before they even have to think about loans.) There is much more to look at than the price-tag that the school gives you when you go to college. The only people free college would really benefit are the upper-middle class and up - in other words - those who don't qualify for the currrent subsidies. 5. Remove their incentive. Big businesses know that the government will give them corporate welfare and regulations that help them. If you get rid of these two things, then these big businesses wouldn't care about government because it would not be possible for them to benefit in that way from it. One can't have one's cake and eat it too. Most states do. If I wanted to buy a car, and drive it on my private property I don't need to take a test for that. Consequentely if I want to buy a gun and use it on my property I don't have to take a test. However, if I want to use either on public property I have to go through a process. In the case of the car I have to take a competency test because the chances of misuse are much, much, much greater. In the case of the gun the state has weighed that such a thing would be costly both economically and polically, and instead opted for you to get a carry permit (some states don't require this for concealed carry, but they also tend to have the lowest crime rates.) Again, the issue isn't guns, but rather the war on drugs. Most other first world countries do not have debilitating drug laws that keep drug-involved persons out of the workplace and stuck in cartels, which are strengthened by these very laws that create monopolies. 98% of gun deaths are not mass-murders, and these are the ones we should be concerned about. The overwhelming majority of those are drug-related. I won't vote for Trump because he is a riduclous personality, and wants to build a wall on an arbitrary line in the earth, which would cost the taxed - billions. Said wall is guranteed to take away freedoms. He also is economically mixed and would likely benefit corporatists. I like Bernie on all of the issues that are progressing fine without him: social and foreign policy. He is atrocious on economic policies, and despite his intentions he will put the ball in the corporatist court with the plethora of taxes and regulations that will hurt the little guy much more than it will hurt the big guy. Clinton is the worst of the three. She combines the worst features of both worlds. She wants to pander to both the liberals that Bernie appeals to, and the interventionist foreign policies that conservatives like. Furthermore, her civil liberties record is sketchy, and she's been playing with the idea of gun buyback programs. She is also a huge corporatist shill. Unfortunately, I think she is going to be the next POTUS. At the very least though I'd rather listen to her talk more than I would Trump, and for that reason I probably wouldn't mind if she won over him, because her personality is at least tolerable. |
Seems like you have a good understanding on the climate change. That's good to be educated. We just disagree on how fast we need to act and what we need to do, which is fine, that's what forums are for! We can disagree on all the other points too, so I won't go over them because it'll get us nowhere hah.
I think Clinton is the worst, by far for the reasons you stated and then some. Her most recent suggestion that Bernie is a mysoginist is ridiculous and she overplays her gender card way too much. I disagree with you on Sanders and Trump though. I will vote for anyone but Clinton.
